politics of resistance

This might be the saddest day of the presidential campaign for me personally. CNN's Roland Martin is reporting that Obama has sent a letter to Trinity United Church resigning his membership. I respect his decision, but it pains me that it has come to this. I know that such decisions can't be made lightly.

While I am excited about the role faith has played in this election, I am also worried about the increasing blurring of the religious and political spheres on both sides. As I have said before, while I understand the perspective of many of the pastors who have been politically criticized, I also believe these ministers have a responsibility for to speak truth in a way that transmits grace and promotes reconciliation. All to often ministers flaunt their right to speak "truth" without considering this truth in context.

At the same time, I have alarmed by those on the right and the left who have invaded the religious sphere hunting for sermon footage of controversial statements, infiltrating congregations, and twisting entire sermons into inflammatory sound bites. This week I saw Matt Taibbi on the John Stewart show talking about his new book The Great Derangement. Basically Taibbi infiltrated John Haggee's congregation (fundamentalist preacher from Texas) for five months and even went so far as to become a member in order to gain material for his juicy insider book. While I was shocked at the extremity of their practices Tabbi described, I was also deeply disturbed by how unethical it was for Taibbi to exploit the good faith of the church members and leadership by posing as a sincere believer. They should rightly feel betrayed.


People of faith on both sides of the aisle should be alarmed at this type of political aggrandizing, and we should condemn it. While it is appropriate to hold church leaders accountable, we should also stand by the separation of church and state. What our church leaders say should be held to account against the the gospel, not against what is politically expedient or inexpedient. We should repudiate the authority of the Shawn Hannidys or Matt Taibbis to speak about what is appropriate and not appropriate when it comes to expressing the relationship between faith and politics. There is nothing that upsets me more than to hear a Republican strategist express outrage about the "hate speech" coming out of Trinity, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of racial oppression and injustice that such comments are arising out of.


A comment by a NYT poster responding to the news about Obama demonstrates the tension of faith and politics in this presidential race:

"I have the highest regards for Senator Obama, and understand it was politically expedient to do this, in light of the unfortunate statements some ministers there have made — but I regret his decision: I think the ministers were speaking honestly, though controversially and imperfectly, out of a liberation theology entirely suited to a people whose history has been so painful and so political. These controversies are “teaching moments,” a chance to engage history and truth… "

I mourn the fact that people of faith are not responding with more vigor to these events because the bottom line is that we should be the ones to be providing a balanced critique and a vigorous exploration of faith in context. It is on us to resist the political propagandizing and turn these events into teaching moments. We should also remember that it is not just Obama who is suffering from these events, but rather all the members of Trinity and the larger African American church. Members are scared, paranoid, and worried that there every move is being scrutinized and labeled. Elderly shut in members report getting calls from the media asking how they have been treated by the church.

I know this is nothing new. Members of controversial churches have regularly been exposed to such scrutiny, especially when their leader is regarded as highly controversial and offensive. I'm thinking of my own former, former, church in Seattle, Mars Hill, as an example. However, people of faith should demand that the public and the media explore more carefully, compassionately, and critically the role and work of the church, which is not about the Republican or Democratic agenda but rather about the work of the gospel.

I'm not suggesting that the gospel doesn't have political implications. In some cases, it is entirely appropriate to address these implications within the church. However, I think people of faith should vigurously resist the politicization of the church by both the right and the left, and we should do so publically.